Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 36 Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons returns to Tucson, Arizona where the usual surgical presentations are eagerly awaited. The new journal, Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, is pleased to be able to carry the abstracts in this supplement, and also has online access for retrieval and review of the abstracts. The presentations have good variety, excellent science, and a range of presentation styles. There has been significant time, thought, and effort devoted to each presentation submission. The chosen submissions have been presented in word abstract form only in this publication, ie, no tables or figures. The meeting commences with an afternoon Robotics Course. Some of the regular meeting highlights include presentations on use of mesh in vaginal surgery, considerations on the FDA notification regarding use of mesh, education of residents through skills labs, simulators, self-directed learning and portable devices, cost factors in varied surgical approaches, and sexual function after a number of surgical procedures. Preventive strategies are presented for DVT and brachial plexus injuries. Videos are again a major part of the program and include tips on difficult vaginal hysterectomy, several presentations on robotic surgery, fistula repair, and cystoscopic findings. Many papers do not make the podium and numerous interesting procedures, observations, and learning tips are included in the nonoral poster presentations. While it is hoped you attend all the presentations in person, the abstracts can be a guide to what to expect, and a reminder of what was said. It can be searched later on for that all important presentation with a key piece of new information. Once again, we thank those who have done the research, prepared their work diligently, and shared it with the rest of us. It is a continual process of question and answer, so be prepared to challenge the presenters with your questions, and you will then have answers for the next questioner.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".